[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
[/quote]
So why were they so much smaller then? Do you feel that the addition of insulin has had that big of an impact on what can be achieved?
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
i have seen infront of my eyes , chiwawas and real ones become pitball , some looked like homo looking pitballs but still pitball never the lessâŠthey were pitball ,
[/quote]
This part makes me laugh every time.
There is a lot of wisdom in those misspelled words. Only a few people will end up reading it, but they will be better for it.
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Not only have the drugs âimprovedâ, but the understanding and application of exercise science, nutrition (better quality and variety of supps today), training apparatus, and sports medicine.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that the increases in size seen in todays pros are due to improved (legal) supplements & exercise science?
As far as the drugs go, back then they werenât vilified and seen as cheating like they are today. They were seen as âsuper vitaminsâ basically. So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
Itâs interesting to note, while the BBers of today are drier & leaner, they do not have anywhere near the seperation of the proâs of the 70âs and 80âs. Each muscle group stands out on its own, great lines & definition.[/quote]
You ask me that, yet you contradict yourself right after.
I posited that ALL things have improved today compared to decades ago. How can you deny that?
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
i have seen infront of my eyes , chiwawas and real ones become pitball , some looked like homo looking pitballs but still pitball never the lessâŠthey were pitball ,
[/quote]
This part makes me laugh every time.
But my advice to everyone would be to read this segment over and over. There is a lot of wisdom in those misspelled words. Only a few people will end up reading it, but they will be better for it.[/quote]
x2 LOL
I read somewhere in an article by Frank Zane, that him and everybody else used to try and train everything as hard as they could with TONS of volume and every muscle basically 3x a week.
(Do you guys Recall Arnolds routine?
Chest/Back/Legs/Forearms/Calves 1 day,
Shoulders/Biceps/Triceps/Forearms/Calves 1 day,repeated 6 days a week and 1 day rest in total)
Then Zane wrote he moved on to just doing a 3 on, 1 off , sometimes 2 days off, and he started âGrowing betterâ.
It got me to thinking ASIDE from drug use or whatever other factors, perhaps one of the other ones that limited them from becoming even larger than life than they already were, was that they simply trained muscles too much?
I mean shootâŠArnold looked so AMAZINGâŠeven with that unbelievably insane routine, it obviously worked haha!!!
But, maybe , if he did something like what Zane did to end up growing more; he would have ACTUALLY grown even more? Like how Ronnie Coleman/Lee Haney ended up training⊠just every muscle 2x a week with not as much insanity and volume? Just a possibility, who knows!
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Not only have the drugs âimprovedâ, but the understanding and application of exercise science, nutrition (better quality and variety of supps today), training apparatus, and sports medicine.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that the increases in size seen in todays pros are due to improved (legal) supplements & exercise science?
As far as the drugs go, back then they werenât vilified and seen as cheating like they are today. They were seen as âsuper vitaminsâ basically. So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
Itâs interesting to note, while the BBers of today are drier & leaner, they do not have anywhere near the seperation of the proâs of the 70âs and 80âs. Each muscle group stands out on its own, great lines & definition.[/quote]
You ask me that, yet you contradict yourself right after.
I posited that ALL things have improved today compared to decades ago. How can you deny that?
[/quote]
??? Where did I contradict myself? Honest question.
You are correct in that all things have improved. But I am of the opinion that the differences between the pros of today and those of years past are overwhelmingly due to PEDs, not improved training programs and stuff like creatine, BCAAs, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.
GH15 needed some grammar lessons, I get a migrane everytime I read some repost of his stuff.
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Not only have the drugs âimprovedâ, but the understanding and application of exercise science, nutrition (better quality and variety of supps today), training apparatus, and sports medicine.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that the increases in size seen in todays pros are due to improved (legal) supplements & exercise science?
As far as the drugs go, back then they werenât vilified and seen as cheating like they are today. They were seen as âsuper vitaminsâ basically. So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
Itâs interesting to note, while the BBers of today are drier & leaner, they do not have anywhere near the seperation of the proâs of the 70âs and 80âs. Each muscle group stands out on its own, great lines & definition.[/quote]
You ask me that, yet you contradict yourself right after.
I posited that ALL things have improved today compared to decades ago. How can you deny that?
[/quote]
??? Where did I contradict myself? Honest question.
You are correct in that all things have improved. But I am of the opinion that the differences between the pros of today and those of years past are overwhelmingly due to PEDs, not improved training programs and stuff like creatine, BCAAs, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.
[/quote]
well this thread went to shit in a hurry. thanks guys!
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Not only have the drugs âimprovedâ, but the understanding and application of exercise science, nutrition (better quality and variety of supps today), training apparatus, and sports medicine.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that the increases in size seen in todays pros are due to improved (legal) supplements & exercise science?
As far as the drugs go, back then they werenât vilified and seen as cheating like they are today. They were seen as âsuper vitaminsâ basically. So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
Itâs interesting to note, while the BBers of today are drier & leaner, they do not have anywhere near the seperation of the proâs of the 70âs and 80âs. Each muscle group stands out on its own, great lines & definition.[/quote]
You ask me that, yet you contradict yourself right after.
I posited that ALL things have improved today compared to decades ago. How can you deny that?
[/quote]
??? Where did I contradict myself? Honest question.
You are correct in that all things have improved. But I am of the opinion that the differences between the pros of today and those of years past are overwhelmingly due to PEDs, not improved training programs and stuff like creatine, BCAAs, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.
[/quote]
You describe the drugs of decades ago as supplements because of their legality and such, and that they were widely and massively consumed. Within that context, pros back then should be larger than pros today. Subsequently, all things being equal on the drug front, it only stands to reason that things like apparatus, sports medicine, and better understanding of exercise science would be the things that have marked the dramatic improvement of pros today.
I was only stating the synergy of all these things are what has brought such âimprovementsâ (I quoted improvements because some folks believe todayâs pros are not as good as those from decades ago).
I guess nobody read the bible excerptâŠlol. Could have expected as much. Growth hormona and insulina have caused these massive differences from the Golden Age to the Sausage Water Balloon Age.
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
I guess nobody read the bible excerptâŠlol. Could have expected as much. Growth hormona and insulina have caused these massive differences from the Golden Age to the Sausage Water Balloon Age. [/quote]
LOL
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Not only have the drugs âimprovedâ, but the understanding and application of exercise science, nutrition (better quality and variety of supps today), training apparatus, and sports medicine.
[/quote]
Do you really believe that the increases in size seen in todays pros are due to improved (legal) supplements & exercise science?
As far as the drugs go, back then they werenât vilified and seen as cheating like they are today. They were seen as âsuper vitaminsâ basically. So I have no doubt that they were using massive amounts of AAS like todays pros. Not to mention they were legal, pharmaceutical grade, & inexpensive.
Itâs interesting to note, while the BBers of today are drier & leaner, they do not have anywhere near the seperation of the proâs of the 70âs and 80âs. Each muscle group stands out on its own, great lines & definition.[/quote]
You ask me that, yet you contradict yourself right after.
I posited that ALL things have improved today compared to decades ago. How can you deny that?
[/quote]
??? Where did I contradict myself? Honest question.
You are correct in that all things have improved. But I am of the opinion that the differences between the pros of today and those of years past are overwhelmingly due to PEDs, not improved training programs and stuff like creatine, BCAAs, etc. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.
[/quote]
You describe the drugs of decades ago as supplements because of their legality and such, and that they were widely and massively consumed. Within that context, pros back then should be larger than pros today. Subsequently, all things being equal on the drug front, it only stands to reason that things like apparatus, sports medicine, and better understanding of exercise science would be the things that have marked the dramatic improvement of pros today.
I was only stating the synergy of all these things are what has brought such âimprovementsâ (I quoted improvements because some folks believe todayâs pros are not as good as those from decades ago).[/quote]
Itâs like some of these guys are just creaming their pants waiting to scream âall drugs!!!â.
Arnold was the person to beat in the 60âs and 70âs. He became a representation of the times because of it. That does not mean he was absolutely the best bodybuilder that ever lived thoughâŠand comparing different eras like that is really a waste of time. Our environment has shaped what we even strive for.
Strange how this forum seems to always go down the same route.
It is the drugs that is the main difference between now and the 70s. Specifically GH and insulin but also how cycles are set up, guys taking more and more etc. There are other boards full of national and international competitors who state this is the case, they speak from personal experience. They know what they are talking about.
Yet there are many guys here with zero experience of competing at any level talking like they know it all.
I honestly find it strange. Whatâs the problem? They are on shit loads of drugs, full of oil etc. Who cares? They still live the life, not like they are any less dedicated than Arnoldâs age or anything.
Just compare the top guys of this decade to the 70s. Arnold/Jay Cutler, Serge/Heath. Come on! Yes nutrition, training etc has developed since then but it is obviously the drugs. They look TOTALLY different now.
Or as another example, look at photos of Dorian from his early days to his final days. That transformation is not due to HIT/ being more meticulous measuring his food etc. It is LARGELY down to taking more and more drugs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Our environment has shaped what we even strive for.[/quote]
So do you think BBâers from previous eras âheld backâ? If it wasnât necessarily the introduction of GH and insulin that seems to have taken physiques to that next level of size, do you think they just werenât pushing their limits enough in the 70âs, 80âs, and early 90âs?
Iâm not saying that is what you are implying, Iâm seriously curious.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Dude - câmon man - of course we know they werenât using the same shit⊠Insulin and GH alone were never used back then.
[/quote]
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
âŠand arnold EXPERIEMNETED WITH HGH!,
[/quote]
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And yes - âexperimenting withâ is a far cry from âdoing as much shit as the top guys today.â [/quote]
^^you have to see why this is funny right? lol
Just because compounds werenât being utilized properly or as effectively as tey are today doesnât mean that they werenât being used back then.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Itâs like some of these guys are just creaming their pants waiting to scream âall drugs!!!â.
Arnold was the person to beat in the 60âs and 70âs. He became a representation of the times because of it. That does not mean he was absolutely the best bodybuilder that ever lived thoughâŠand comparing different eras like that is really a waste of time. Our environment has shaped what we even strive for.[/quote]
No need to scream what everybody already knows. Look in the mirror. Why do you look different than an IFBB pro? Is it because they follow a different training program? Or do they eat different foods?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
You describe the drugs of decades ago as supplements because of their legality and such, and that they were widely and massively consumed. Within that context, pros back then should be larger than pros today. Subsequently, all things being equal on the drug front, it only stands to reason that things like apparatus, sports medicine, and better understanding of exercise science would be the things that have marked the dramatic improvement of pros today.
I was only stating the synergy of all these things are what has brought such âimprovementsâ (I quoted improvements because some folks believe todayâs pros are not as good as those from decades ago).[/quote]
Gotcha. Well, as you mentioned vis a vis Tim Belknapp & insulin, not all things WERE equal on the drug front. Recombinant growth hormone has only been around since the 80âsâŠLee Haney is probably the first one to make good use of it. Tim Belknapp probably discovered that insulin could be used for size by accident. Then Dorian pushed the size envelope by combining both of them. Was it his HIT training program? Probably not, because Mike Mentzer did the same thing yet weighed a good 50 pounds less on stage.
As far as AAS goes, yeah Iâd say its pretty much equal between then and now. Different steroids are en vogue now, but the amounts are probably comparable. So why the difference in size? Use of peptides, first and foremostâJust my opinion though of course.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Dude - câmon man - of course we know they werenât using the same shit⊠Insulin and GH alone were never used back then.
[/quote]
[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
âŠand arnold EXPERIEMNETED WITH HGH!,
[/quote]
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And yes - âexperimenting withâ is a far cry from âdoing as much shit as the top guys today.â [/quote]
Ok, so first GH wasnât being used by pros back then, then you acknowledge that it was?
Just because compounds werenât being utilized properly or as effectively as tey are today doesnât mean that they werenât being used back then.[/quote]
Greg you flat out said that the 70âs pros took as much, and the same, compounds as now. Thatâs patently false. You obviously want to continue to split hairs over everything - GH15 says Arnold used HGH - GH15 is spot on quite a bit of the time, but heâs also a nutbag and I wonât take his word as authority on that topic.
I will say MAYBE he experimented with it, which is a FAR CRY from saying he was dosing it the way they do today. If I misinterpreted your statement then I apologize, but as it stands, no fucking way were 70âs guys regularly dosing GH and insulin, or using the same protocols, or using the same ancillary drugs.
Thatâs all Iâm saying.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Greg you flat out said that the 70âs pros took as much, and the same, compounds as now. Thatâs patently false. [/quote]
I did? Where did I say that? What I said, and Iâll repeat it for the 4th time now, is that âthere is no way you could possible know that.â (in regards to pros now days taking way more drugs than back in the day.)
Youâre trying to argue with me and you dont even know what youâre arguing about.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
Also LOL@ people saying that the proâs back in the day werent using steroids as much as the guys now days are. There is no way you could possibly know that, youâre just talking out of you⊠Well you get the picture.[/quote]
Dude - câmon man - of course we know they werenât using the same shit, or as much. Not that they are steroids, but Insulin and GH alone (two HUGE reasons why dudes are so fucking monstrous these days) were never used back then.
Thereâs so much more gear available today than there ever was in 1975âŠSo yes, itâs very safe to say the guys back then were not on any kind of drug regimen that remotely resembles what guys today are usingâŠ[/quote]
Right thereâŠwhere I quoted you the first time. Saying you canât possibly know that, in reference to people saying pros back in the day werenât using steroids as much as the guys now days are, suggests that you are saying they were using the same compounds and amounts. If thatâs not what you meant then I already offered an apology if I misinterpreted what you were saying.
^^LOL
Iâve already said it a tons of times⊠I said that because people are trying to pass their hunches/theories/suspicions off as a fact; that âproâs now days are using way more drugs than the guys back in the day didâ which to that I say âthere is no way you can possibly know that.â
People can speculate all they want but itâs just speculation, not fact.
Thatâs all Iâve said. I never said guys back in the day take as much drugs as guys do now because I donât believe that is true, but I donât try to pass my opinion off as fact like most.